1. Union of India is not satisfied with the outcome of the OA filed by the respondent No.1, Mr. L.K. Puri, before the Central Administrative Tribunal inasmuch as the said OA of the respondent No.1 has been allowed by the Tribunal vide its impugned judgment dated 24.1.2007 and the decision of the Government imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages vide orders dated 24.6.2005 has been set aside. The petitioner maintains that such a decision was properly taken without any infirmity therein and the Tribunal should not have set aside the same.

2. Abrief factual matrix transpires that the respondent No.1 was served with charge memo dated 29.11.2002 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 levelling the charge relating to handling the matter of procurement of 1000 computers for MPCM project for the year 2000-01 in his capacity as Deputy Director General (Tech.) and Sr. Deputy Director General (CPT). It was alleged that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted against public interest, causing undue favour to M/s. Compaq Computers, inasmuch as after finalization of the Notice Inviting Tender, he effected changes in it in the specifications to suit the requirement of M/s. Compaq Computers and is initiation of proposal dated 15.3.2001 led to a decision on 16.3.2001, whereby without proper examination of various options in terms of cost effectiveness etc. it had been proposed to purchase computers instead of taking those computers on lease, from which act M/s. Compaq Computers benefited unjustifiably.

3. The Inquiry Officer, after holding the inquiry, returned his findings establishing Articles (i) and (iv) of the charges as proved and holding that Article of charge No. (ii) was not proved and Article (iii) was partly proved. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were referred to the Central Vigilance Commission (for short, “CVC”) for their second stage advice. CVC vide its ID Note dated 4.2.2004 advised imposition of suitable major penalty on the respondent No.1. The said Inquiry Report, along with CVC”s second stage advice, was supplied to the respondent No.1 for making representation, if any. The respondent No.1 wrote back letter dated 8.3.2004 seeking extension of time by 15 days to submit the reply. He also demanded copy of the views of the department conveyed to CVC while seeking second stage advice. Though the respondent No.1 was allowed further time, the department refused to supply copy of its comments sent to CVC on the ground that there was no provision in the Rules for this purpose. The respondent No.1 accordingly submitted his representation. Thereafter, order dated 24.6.2005 was passed by the President of India imposing the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages, i.e. from Rs.24,500/- to Rs.23,450/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.22400-525-24500 with immediate effect with further direction that he would not earn any increment in his pay till his retirement which was due on 31.10.2005.

.4. Challenging that order, the respondent filed the aforesaid OA. Primary ground to challenge the order was that there was negation of principles of natural justice in not supplying the copy of views sent by the department to CVC. This contention has been accepted by the Tribunal and the entire discussion in this aspect is contained in para 9 of the impugned judgment, which reads as under :- “9. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the material on record, we are of the considered view that the CVC has issued OM dated 28.9.2000 in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India v. D.C. Aggarwal, AIR 1993 SC 497, wherein the Apex Court ruled that copy of the CVC”s recommendation which has been prepared behind the back of the concerned employee and its non-supply would deprive one an opportunity to confront the material. Accordingly, it is mandated to serve, before imposition of punishment, a copy of the CVC”s recommendation. In the aforesa